Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Eugenics and Darwinism

I don't object Darwinism and its fellow traveller so much on religious grounds; it is its social implications that terrify me. Secular Humanists, who should be clearly distinguished from Christian Humanists, are by nature destructive of human life.Read this from The Bones

'When Eric Harris arrived at Columbine High School on the morning of April 20, 1999, he was wearing a “Natural Selection” T-shirt. Before Finnish student Pekka-Eric Auvinen murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, he wrote that “­stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing…faster than the ­intelligent, strong-minded” ones. “Death and killing is not a ­tragedy,” he went on, “it happens in nature all the time.”Auvinen’s YouTube handle was “NaturalSelector89” and both boys, says Dennis Sewell, were “amateur social Darwinists”: they used evolutionary theory to justify their atrocities. In this polemical mini-history of the political abuses of Darwinism, Sewell shows how they were part of a miserably long tradition, taking in everything from forced sterilisation to mass murder. It is a disturbing and provocative book.Sewell admits that Darwin himself was a man inclined to gentleness and modesty, but early enthusiasts for his theory could be a little redder in claw. In Britain, Darwin’s friend Herbert Spencer — who coined the term “survival of the fittest” — argued vociferously against state aid for the indigent. If people “are sufficiently complete to live, they do live”, he wrote; if not, “they die, and it is best they should die”. Or, as Darwin himself observed, “excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed”.Fabians, socialists and all kinds of nefarious interventionists eagerly signed up to the cause. HG Wells complained that “we cannot make the social life and the world peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens”. In America, campaigners paid homeless men to walk around wearing sandwich boards with the legend “I am a ­burden to myself and the state. Should I be allowed to propagate?”'

22 comments:

Not surprisingly, Margaret Sanger, the founder the the organization which became Planned Parenthood (it's anything BUT about actual parenthood), was a big proponent of Eugenics -- in her case she specifically spoke out about non-whites reproducing, ditto those of southern European extraction (i.e. Catholics) or Slavic peoples (i.e. orthodox, more Catholics, or Jews) -- No surprise she spoke before KKK rallies. A few years ago, PP went berzerk when copywrites ran out on some of her early books where she badly asserted the above. They'd like to hide that dirty little not so secret.

It would surprise me none to find out of Ms. Stopes was on the same page.

Marie Stopes, Francis Galton, Sidney and Beatrice Webb were all enthusiastic advocates for compulsory sterilization of whom they regarded as unfit.

A commentator (19th Feb 09 11.29)on the Guardian editorial comment is free draws attention to the Fabian Tract of 1906 written by the Webbs in which they say:

In Great Britain at this moment, when half, or perhaps two-thirds of all the married people are regulating their families, children are being freely born to the Irish Roman Catholics and the Polish, Russian and German Jews, the thriftless and irresponsible. This can hardly result in anything but national deterioration, or this country falling to the Irish and the Jews.

Fry and Hitchens go around calling the Holy Father a Nazi. I wonder what they think of Marie Stopes who sent letters and poems to Hitler? But then the ability for double-think is a necessary requirement if you want to be considered for the liberal elite.

Darwin's science is sound and the church does not oppose sound science. What you are talking about are socialism, capitalism and the various other fruits of the so-called Enlightenment. If you look at where that movement came from it is not so very surprising that it produced evil in many manifestations, all under the appearance of light.

And by the way, isn't Lucifer, light bearer, one of the names of Satan?

To rip-off the great G.K "once people stop beliving in God, they'll do anything to achieve thier own warped utopia". Well at least unlike the average athiest/agnostic they and Dr strangelove singer of Princeton are consistent even if they have sacraficed their sanity in the process.

I don't object Darwinism and its fellow traveller so much on religious grounds; it is its social implications that terrify me.

Are you saying thousands of biologists should throw out 150 years of scientific progress because you are afraid of insane people?

You realize of course that evolution by natural selection is a basic scientific fact? Or are you an uneducated moron? I'm betting on moron because I never met a priest or preacher who wasn't dumber than a dog.

Father, just because the Darwinists - for want of a better word, although I prefer New Atheists - have decided to attack us does not mean that we have to fall for their bait and allow them to think we are the Straw Men they keep invoking. The Catholic church is not a church of Six Day Creationists, Snake Handlers or Mega Church panhandlers. We think that eugenics is an abomination but we don't deny the truths of evolution. We do not fall into the simple trap of acting as our enemies would love to describe us.

Humanist Eugenicists,Optimum Population Trustees and all the other Nutters who want to bump off the defenceless should be the first lot to be removed from "The Gene Pool".

We are taught about the Sanctity of Life and the paramount importance to help the Sick,Aged,Infirm and anybody else unable to look after themselves.If we do not fight these enemies of civilisation what are we doing here?

It is a complete waste of time trying to argue with the ignorant,they must be TOTALLY OSTRACISED not encouraged by listening to them.

These nincompoops are spreading fear and alarm and the least the authorities can do is BAN them all under Health and Safety Act as a MENACE to SOCIETY.

It is not a Darwinian science, it is irrationality. If, in a natural population, "stupid" and "weak-minded" people are out-reproducing the "intelligent" then such is natural selection. Here, "stupid" are simply more fit ("fitness" in evolutionary biology is in fact defined in reproductive terms). Ha-ha. In fact, social-darwinism has nothing to do with NATURAL selection (and neither with Darwinism), it just tried to impose an UNNATURAL selection with an arbitrary criterion.

Physiocrat - Darwin's 'Science' is anything but sound! Convenient 'Missing links' to fill in the gaping gaps is just all too much to swallow.

Think about it for a moment.... why are there no examples of partly evolved 'inter-species' anywhere in the world to behold, there are simply no shining examples of evolution on its relentless march towards superiority????? Why??? Well, there just aren't any, because it's junk science!

Why haven't some bird species (you know the more intelligent ones), why haven't they started building nests with front doors, or with windows and central heating. Why haven't lions learned how to cook their meat and hence enjoy a more hearty meal. Why don't chimps communicate by mobile phone save all that leaping around in trees in eth jungle?

One could go on with more and ever more absurd examples of why Darwin's 'theory' (more appropriately 'conjecture') of evolution simply 'doesn't stack up!'

As for the eugenics mob - funny how it's always someone else who is unworthy of life according to their criteria. Mad as Hatters the lot of 'em.

PhysiocaratDarwins science is not sound Natural seclection does not explain human intelligence. We do not just survive we build, we explore, we appreciate and paint works of great beauty, this goes well beyond the `survival of the fittest`. Again Evolution is not Darwinism, Darwin gave his theory but there were others around which were much better and did not exclude God. That is the difficulty some scientists have ignored this and tell the lie that evolution and natural selection go together. They do not. Darwinism did result in evil. In `The Descent of Man` Darwin explained that human progress had happened through the fitter tribes killing of the less fit. He claimed that we allow lesser beings to live and bred at the cost of our own progress. But he did say that there was a certain trait of sympathy that had now devolooped in man. This was because he had a heart as well as a head. His disciples unfortunately did not have this `heart`. When this book was translated into German the superior race idea caught hold. You may remember that in films in the thirties Jews were displayed as monkeys, one of those races holding back the Darwinian theory of the advance of humanity. The rlationship is very clear and it is not sound science.

I am thinking about isolating those self-professed "elite" into an especial colony surrounded by three (or better five) rows of barbwire. Here they may be fee to build an "ideal society" totally composed of the "most intelligent" dudes, obsessed with such things as "fun and risky sexual activity," condoms, same-sex sex, birth control (although I doubs there would be any birth) and so on. Just imagine of best-bred swarms wearing sandwich boards with "I am the happiest Best of Breed, why wouldn't I propagate?" LiberLag or SecLag may eb a good name for the happy society.

"Are you saying thousands of biologists should throw out 150 years of scientific progress because you are afraid of insane people?"

What progress? The only notable progress in Biology over those years, has been from Geneticists and their work continually brings evolutionary theory into question. (Medicinal Science is now not just a branch of 'Biology'!)

As a organic chemist I used to believe in evolution as a scientific theory on par with the various laws of physics, as do many scientists!That was until a biologist in a lecture gave a brief run down of the 'science' behind the theory, he as an expert had found very little biological science to back up the theory. I went away and looked to see if there were the chemical proofs! I found that chemically the production of the larger organic chemical building blocks of the cell, was extremely unlikely let alone the simplest cell, using the conditions proposed by evolutionary theory.

An Atheist (and scientist) of all people worked out the probability of it all, "the number is so close to zero to be effectively zero". He suggested that it would be of a similar likely hood, of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747!

The most vocal of evolutionists seem to be atheists! They believe their is no God, some going so far as to create their own imaginary god, and then use their limited understanding of science to 'prove' their 'god' does not exist... hmmm.

Evolution is far to often used to 'prove' that God does not exist, and that has led to some very unpleasant actions by people that use Darwin and his theory (Note, NOT scientific LAW) to excuse their abhorrent practices!

You seem to be mixing up darwinism with biological evolution. Biological evolution is a fact that darwin's theory tries to explain. The two are not the same.All dawinists are biological evolutionists but not all biological evolutionists are darwinists. Listen carefullyEven the dogs are barking it in the streets . I suppose you can't hear them with all the morons talking in your head FR G

I thinnk we may be falling into the trap the Atheists set. Atheists have maintained the myth that Evolution must be Godless to the extent that we can now eliminate God. Whereas it is true that scientists can only deal with the natural world and not possit a God in any studies it can lead to more confusion and greater faith in their own ego that just simply saying there is a God. So natural selection jumps hoops and leaves many things unexplained while assuring us that they are. The first form of life found in ancient rocks was a bacteria going back 3,600 billion years. This was at the saeme time we are told water came into being. Yet Darwinists insist that life over a long period evolved from water. There is also the missing links. Take an example from a report last year that the fossil of a bird a bird with a spinalal column had been found in Austrailia and this was proof of the transition of reptiles to birds. It certainly was not. It simply was a bird with a spinal column. If Evolution takes place slowly we should have more missing link specimens showing the gradual movement. The absence of missing links does not seem to make many scientists more honest They just seem more determined to hang on to their Godless theory and calling it fact. fYet if we look at the fossil record there is evidence of Evolution and Evolution is an extraordinary thing which should focus us on the great mystery of our Universe. There is nothing wrong in being an Evolutionist, there is everything wrong in being a Darwinist.

@GeorgePhysiocrat - Darwin's 'Science' is anything but sound! Convenient 'Missing links' to fill in the gaping gaps is just all too much to swallow.

Think about it for a moment.... why are there no examples of partly evolved 'inter-species' anywhere in the world to behold, there are simply no shining examples of evolution on its relentless march towards superiority????? Why??? Well, there just aren't any, because it's junk science!

You can see evolution in action in your own back yard. If you don't have one, go to your local park or visit a dog show or your neighbourhood garden shop. Or, more sinisterly, in your local hospital.

The evidence from so many different fields of study is so strong and so obvious that the wonder is that nobody came to the same conclusion long before Darwin. And a century later, people came up with a convincing mechanism to explain how evolution could work. Other evidence such as continental drift and genetic analysis has piled up to explain difficult things like the distribution of species.

There are lots of intermediate species in existence today, many of them familiar.

But why would birds want to bother with building front doors like humans, which they would be physically incapable of anyway, or communicating by mobile phone when they have a perfectly good means of communicating already.

The concept of evolution does not exclude God and gives an excellent account of the evolution of intelligence in man, though at times one has to wonder, when one looks on the one hand at some people's behaviour and on the other at their enthusiasm about commenting on topics about which they obviously know very little.

This resistance to the blindingly obvious makes it easy for wicked and stupid people to make a mockery of religion, as you will see if you look at the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic vitriol to be found regularly on the Guardian's website.

It all reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge: they had they had better do it [die], and decrease the surplus population. Who are we to decide the worth of a person, and where does it end? Do we start with the old, the terminally ill...the mentally retarded? I have a developmentally disabled (autistic) child. Should he be kept from having children? Better yet, should I have been because I gave birth to an "inferior" child? I guess it's possible, now that we can screen a person's genetic makeup. Potentially scary times.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna

My Parish's Website

Comments

Comments may or may not be published. The choice is made on the spur of the moment and is purely arbitary. I do not necessarily agree with all comments published but they are published in the interest of debate. If you object go here.